The producer of the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary, a poorly
researched and bias hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, appeared
on the Alex Jones Show yesterday and struggled to defend charges that
the program was laden with glaring flaws and crass emotional manipulation
throughout.

Smith began by claiming that he conducted the investigation in an "objective
and balanced way" and yet there were as many as thirteen individuals
representing the official story or a whitewash version of it versus
just three individuals representing 9/11 skepticism. How can a more
than four to one ratio be judged as balanced? In addition, the debunkers
were allowed to talk at length while the skeptics were tightly edited
and had extremely little on screen time.

Smith is completely dishonest in claiming the evidence alone led the
nature of the documentary because the way in which it is filmed and
edited clearly betrays an overwhelming bias and a zeal to discredit
the skeptics by means of editorial deceit and cinematic manipulation
of the audience.

Smith was forced to state "no I'm not denying that" when
he was questioned on the imbalance of having four times the amount of
debunkers compared to skeptics.

Dylan Avery's first question for Guy Smith was to ask, "How can
I drop out of something I never attended." In the hit piece, the
narrator calls Avery a "self-confessed dropout," a clear smear
attempt to undermine his trustworthiness, when in reality Avery never
even attended college.

Smith bizarrely tried to wriggle out of this basic factual error by
claiming that in England the term "dropout" doesn't mean to
drop out of college or University, but merely to go a different route.
Being British, I immediately confirmed that dropout, in the overwhelming
majority of its usage and certainly in this context, means to have attended
University or school and dropped out. It means the same thing in England
that it does in America and
a simple search of the BBC News website shows that the term 'dropout'
is almost always used in this context. In claiming otherwise, Smith
is dishonestly trying to hide from the fact that the term was deliberately
used to undermine and smear Avery in the documentary.

Trying to change the meaning of words in the context they are used
is a crass attempt to deflect accusations of bias and Smith needs to
take a long and serious look at himself in the mirror.

When asked about the deliberate implosion of the twin towers, Smith
responded, "We looked into that and we came to the conclusion that
the evidence just doesn't support the conspiracy theory."

Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the evidence the BBC was using to illustrate
its ridiculous "pancake theory" collapse scenario, which was
so implausible that even official
NIST investigators had to back away from it, was a graphic animation
that shows just ten floors collapsing every six seconds, meaning the
BBC is telling us that the twin towers took around 66 seconds to collapse
when in reality they fell in just fourteen.

Above is an excellent debunking of this animation and below you can
see how the BBC used it to support their flawed case.

When challenged on this flaw, all Mr. Smith could say was "it's
not misleading," despite the fact that anyone with two brain cells
to rub together can look at it and see that it is. Guy Smith will probably
recoil in embarrassment at the You Tube explanation above when he realizes
he has used a completely flawed animation as the central supporting
evidence for his advocacy of the official conspiracy theory that two
modern 110 story steel buildings were demolished into small pieces and
dust in under sixteen seconds without the use of incendiary devices.

When challenged why Smith failed to include the words of just one of
the dozens and dozens of first responders, police and firefighters who
heard and saw explosions, and namely Craig Bartmer, the former NYPD
official who heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from it,
Smith at first claimed ignorance to who Bartmer was, even though he
had met and interviewed him at Dylan Avery's home.

Smith says that he tried to "go back to primary sources, to eyewitnesses"
when in reality the show gave 10 minutes to a Hollywood sci-fi producer
of a show that went off the air five years ago, and there was no coverage
whatsoever of the primary eyewitnesses who reported bombs and explosions,
just one selective clip of a fireman talking about damage to Building
7's sprinkler system.

When challenged with why he didn't even mention firefighters who reported
bombs, never mind use any of the literally dozens of video clips and
audio segments from the official NYFD tapes, Smith had no answer and
began talking about people who had complained that he gave too much
air time to "conspiracy theorists," implying that a ratio
of four to one in favor of the debunkers was not enough.

Smith began to sound like a broken record at this point, repeating
the line 'we could debate this all day' and variations of it without
ever actually being able to debate or defend the numerous flaws and
bias throughout his hit piece.

The producer had the gall to claim he had looked at the evidence in
an "objective and dispassionate" way when the documentary
was laden from beginning to middle to end with emotional manipulation
about how asking questions about 9/11 was insulting and hurtful to the
victims, a ludicrous and cynical attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth
movement. In reality, Bill
Doyle, who lost his son in the attack, and represents the largest group
of 9/11 victim's family members, says that over half of his members
are asking the same questions, not to mention the Jersey Girls and numerous
polls of New Yorkers that consistently show the majority believe
there is a government cover-up surrounding 9/11.

When challenged on the notion that Smith had already come to a conclusion
before filming for the show had even finished and therefore betraying
an implicit bias, in addition to Alex Jones' claim that Smith laughed
off 9/11 "conspiracy theories" in a restaurant meeting months
before the show was aired, Smith stuttered before claiming he went into
the project with an "open mind."

I would suggest Mr. Smith’s blatant and offensive bias in producing
this sham documentary comes as a result of his zeal to maintain his
perch in the media establishment peanut gallery and on the BBC gravy
train. Maybe it’s Mr. Smith’s fear that because of journalistic
cowardice in tackling the weapons of mass destruction farce, he realizes
his role in the media is under threat – because people don’t
trust the mainstream any more and are increasingly turning to the alternative
press in search of truth.

The Conspiracy Files charade will ultimately only fan the
flames of 9/11 truth even more, being that its flawed evidence, inherent
bias and manipulative smear tactics will be obvious to those who still
maintain the ability to think for themselves.

Please help
our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth
costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your
support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever
you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal.Click here
to donate.